Muddled military magistracy

Bangladesh’s interim government has granted the army magistracy powers for sixty days with immediate effect on September 17th. It effectively grants the military the authority to undertake civilian law enforcement throughout the country outside the metropolitan areas. A strong case has been made for this extraordinary measure being born of a necessity for the immediate restoration of law and order.

The case is not without merit. The unrestrained violence perpetrated by the police and security forces against the protesters in July and August have eroded public trust in them. Coupled with the prevalence of lawlessness during the tenure of the interim government, there is an urgent need to address the law and order situation. Assuming that there are no extensions to the duration of military deployment, there are, rightly, misgivings about whether this is an instance of the tail wagging the dog.

Of greater concern should be what this means for human rights in Bangladesh. The army is yet to be investigated for its part in the violent suppression of protests, including the imposition of curfew. Since the Awami League regime was toppled, there have been at least four custodial deaths directly attributable to the army. There has been no accountability or justice for these, nor any indication from the government that there will be. Moreover, historically, Bangladesh’s military has an atrocious human rights record, and giving it unbridled powers needs to be monitored closely.

Equally, historically, the military has operated with impunity. The state avenues of accountability have never been utilised against the army. The public avenues of the media and the courts have exercised a deafening silence, only broken by the former with words of praise. This complete absence of scrutiny provides fertile ground for rampant abuse of human rights, which has been part of the military’s modus operandi to date.

Bangladeshis need to heed the warnings of Operation Clean Heart and the 2006-2008 period of military-backed civil society governance. The latter saw the army implement state terror practices of unlawful detention, torture and extrajudicial killing. Muhammad Yunus, who, as the officeholder for the defence portfolio, is ultimately responsible for the actions of the military at present, praised the army during the 2006-2008 regime while it was violating human rights deliberately and as a matter of policy. The West had turned a blind eye at the time, thereby removing any possibility of the egregious violations ceasing or being the subject of thorough investigations and justice.

Those mistakes must not be repeated again. The military, as an institution, is not equipped to oversee civilian law and order. What can be justified as a necessary short-term measure must not be allowed to become a long-term fix. As the world watches, human rights must be prioritised, and Yunus and the army need to be held responsible for every action of the new executive magistrates in uniform over the next two months.●